"If" Jesus had blood brothers & sisters, then...

[Nicea325]

We do not have any documents surviving that definitely state that and I never said we did. We have scripture and that is clear enough. We also have early legends contradicting later legends; another tell tell sign.

Show us where scripture is clear enough Mary gave birth to other children?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You have the earliest Christian historian saying that Jude was his brother humanly speaking. You also have him using the word kinsmen, ie cousin in regard to another family member. I have stated my view about time passing, the legends developing (via Joseph to the cousin theory) and other things.

Show us.

 

[Nicea325]

It does not state she gave birth to them. Isnt that the same question worded differently I just answered?
I do not automatically read that at all. Why would I? Yes, we are dealing with Jewish culture. That is why I know that Mary did not travel with grown men and not their other parents.

No it is not worded differently. You yourself said Scripture is clear enough (your own words) Mary did indeed give birth to other children. If it is explicit,show us where?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Rightlydivide,

Origen

The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

There’s a writing from an early Church father. Now, please show us a writing from any ‘Christian’ from any era stating Mary definitely had other children, besides your own in this thread.

 

[Anna_Scott]

If the half brothers and sisters were sons and daughters of Joseph, from a prior marriage, there would be no DNA of Christ present.

Also, think of how the culture was and what would half brothers and sisters been referred as then?

Prodigal Son1,
I realize that brothers and sisters from a prior marriage of Joseph would not carry the DNA of Christ or of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

I’m not sure what impression you got from my post, but I actually think the Catholics have this one right—Mary is a perpetual Virgin.

Peace,
Anna

Edited to add:

Nicea325,

Since I grew up in the Baptist Church, I was always taught that Jesus did have brothers and sisters—Baptist interpretation of Scripture. As an Anglican leaning heavily towards Catholicism, I do not find sufficient evidence in Holy Scripture for the claim that Mary had children after Christ.

Even stepping away from Scripture, Church, and Tradition; there is something about the idea of Mary having sex with a human husband and bearing half brothers and sisters of our Lord, that is rather disturbing on a Spiritual level. It just doesn’t seem right that the woman who conceived by the Holy Spirit would then have relations with a man.

I also find the idea of Jesus having half brothers and half sisters very unsettling. That would mean that any one of us could be descendants of these half siblings and contain the same human DNA as Christ Himself. On a Spiritual level, it just seems very wrong.

And if there were half brothers and sisters, carrying the DNA of Christ, wouldn’t that genealogy have been preserved? Wouldn’t that “bloodline” be of great importance?

Anna

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prodigal Son1,
I realize that brothers and sisters from a prior marriage of Joseph would not carry the DNA of Christ or of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

I’m not sure what impression you got from my post, but I actually think the Catholics have this one right—Mary is a perpetual Virgin.

Peace,
Anna

Sorry Anna, I misunderstood.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Sorry Anna, I misunderstood.

No problem. I probably didn’t get my point across in a clear way.
Anna

 

[fbl9]

Where were the other children while Jesus was in the temple as a youth…no mention at all.
St.Luke’s gospel account.

 

[LutheranDK]

“If” Jesus had blood brothers & sisters, then…I am curious why Jesus would not have made one them an Apostle? Why no slight detail of little bro’s and sisters by Jesus? No other NT folks (followers of Jesus) discuss them in detail or refer to them as followers? If Mary His Mother followed Jesus,how strange the NT writers make no mention of who took care of Jesus’ siblings?

No mention by the NT writers if they were jealous of Jesus or proud of big bro Jesus? Zilch…nada about them.No word by the ECF’s about their exact names, backgrounds or whereabouts? More important,if Jesus did indeed have blood brothers,strange he would leave the care of His mother to John?

So many unanswered questions about the so-called brothers and sisters of Jesus.

You’re imposing 20th-21st century desires upon 1st century texts. That’s a no-go. The one reasonable argument in there, is the question of why Jesus entrusted Mary to John. An answer MAY be (please note the MAY here) that the others had disowned her after she started following Jesus. There might also be an entirely different explanation. But to dismiss the obvious meaning of the text just because it suits badly with your theological position is untenable and poor exegesis.

Personally, I don’t much care if Jesus was an only child or not. It makes no difference.

Except, of course, if one views sexual intercourse as sinful in and of itself, even within marriage AND maintain that Mary was without sin. In THAT case it makes a big difference. But I don’t see any reason to accept those two premises?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You’re imposing 20th-21st century desires upon 1st century texts. That’s a no-go. The one reasonable argument in there, is the question of why Jesus entrusted Mary to John. An answer MAY be (please note the MAY here) that the others had disowned her after she started following Jesus. There might also be an entirely different explanation. But to dismiss the obvious meaning of the text just because it suits badly with your theological position is untenable and poor exegesis.

Personally, I don’t much care if Jesus was an only child or not. It makes no difference.

They, being Jewish, would have dishonored their mother, all of them if there are as many as some have claimed in this thread? I think you’re imposing 20th-21st century cultures on a 1at century culture. Scriptures do not speak of anyone, but Jesus, as a son, or daughter/child, of Mary. It seems to be a Protestant thing to allow that which is not written, unless it supports a Catholic view. BTW, what was Martin Luther’s view of the perpetual virginity?

 

[LutheranDK]

They, being Jewish, would have dishonored their mother,

Not, I believe, if she was seen as an apostate.

I think you’re imposing 20th-21st century cultures on a 1at century culture.

LOL - nice comeback…or not. I wasn’t imposing anything. I was merely stating that it was a possibility, not claiming it as fact.

Scriptures do not speak of anyone, but Jesus, as a son, or daughter/child, of Mary…

Scripture speaks of Jesus’ brothers and sisters.

It seems to be a Protestant thing to allow that which is not written, unless it supports a Catholic view.

Ahh, the good old “Let’s change the subject: Protestants eat babies!!!”-rhetoric…how I’ve missed it…

BTW, what was Martin Luther’s view of the perpetual virginity?

Relevance?

And again: What’s the big deal? Why does it matter if Mary had sex with her husband or not?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Scripture speaks of Jesus’ brothers and sisters.

If Jesus had ‘step brothers and sisters’, how would they have been referred too back then? What would the implications have been, among the Jewish culture of the times, if it became common knowledge that Joseph was not the father of Mary’s child?

Ahh, the good old “Let’s change the subject: Protestants eat babies!!!”-rhetoric…how I’ve missed it…

That wasn’t so much directed at you as it was someone who claims the Church suppressed evidence. That’s the same Church that had scriptures solely in their possession. I shouldn’t have included it in a response to you and I apologize. You can spit that out now.

Relevance?

And again: What’s the big deal? Why does it matter if Mary had sex with her husband or not?

The relevance comes if you, yourself are Lutheran specifically of the Lutheran Church founded by Martin Luther. I know what he said and would like someone to explain why that is now changed? Was he right to start a new Church, but wrong on the beliefs he started it with?

Assuming you’re a man, would you desire sex with a woman that the Holy Spirit came over and caused to conceive? Mary is the the ark of the new and everlasting covenant. Why would that ark allow a man to touch, but the original ark of the covenant cause death if a man touched it? Lastly, do you believe Catholic salvation is jeopardized by believing Mary to have remain ever virgin? If not, why is it such a big contention for Protestants to beat the drums about, every chance it arises on these forums?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I keep seeing Protestants post, ‘scriptures say brothers and sisters of Jesus’, don’t the same scriptures say that Jesus is the son of the carpenter Joseph? It seems to be for biased reasons that one is to be taken literally, but the other is because of the times/legends/myths/beliefs…

 

[LutheranDK]

QUOTE=Prodigal Son1;7827480]If Jesus had ‘step brothers and sisters’, how would they have been referred too back then?

Stop asking questions you already know the answer to, and knows the other one knows the answer to. It gives the impression that you consider your conversation partner daft, and it’s quite demeaning. They would have been referred to as his brothers and sisters. Which is why step-brothers (children of Joseph from an earlier marriage) is one of the possibilities. I’m just saying that it’s not the only one.

What would the implications have been, among the Jewish culture of the times, if it became common knowledge that Joseph was not the father of Mary’s child?

She would’ve been stoned for adultery. Maybe it’s because it’s getting late, but I don’t see where you’re going with this?

The relevance comes if you, yourself are Lutheran specifically of the Lutheran Church founded by Martin Luther. I know what he said and would like someone to explain why that is now changed? Was he right to start a new Church, but wrong on the beliefs he started it with?

Martin Luther the person is not the cornerstone of the Lutheran church, and although a great theologian, he is not the cornerstone of any church (he even resented the fact that people styled themselves “Lutheran”) - Jesus Christ is. Luther said a great many things (some contradictory) during his life, and if you think that every word spoken/written by Luther is a creed within the Lutheran branch of Christ’s Church, you’re sorely mistaken.

Assuming you’re a man, would you desire sex with a woman that the Holy Spirit came over and caused to conceive?

Appeal to emotion.
The question is: Would a man desire sex with his wife? And the answer, unless Joseph was somehow sexually unable, can safely be assumed to be “yes”.

Mary is the the ark of the new and everlasting covenant. Why would that ark allow a man to touch, but the original ark of the covenant cause death if a man touched it?

I do not follow that logic at all? There is nothing at all in the message of the Angel to Joseph prohibiting him from having sex with Mary, as there were bans on people touching the ark. Typologies have a place, but they can also be taken too far. And this seems to me as a clear-cut case of that.

Lastly, do you believe Catholic salvation is jeopardized by believing Mary to have remain ever virgin?

Not at all. For me, the question is an adiaphoron. As I said - I don’t much care if Mary was ever-virgin or not. It makes no theological difference whatsoever.
What gets my goat is the, in my view, borderline obsession that the RC Church seems to have with the necessity of it. Something I cannot find any support for in Scripture, or in what I know of the culture at the time. On the contrary - having many children was considered a blessing, so for someone to “only” get one child would be remarkable, and make people wonder what she might’ve done to deserve that fate. And it would CERTAINLY have been something which would have been worthy of mentioning by the writers of the NT.

If not, why is it such a big contention for Protestants to beat the drums about, every chance it arises on these forums?

1: I don’t beat any drums. I asked a legitimate question.
2: What on Earth makes you think I represent anyone but myself?

 

[LutheranDK]

I keep seeing Protestants post, ‘scriptures say brothers and sisters of Jesus’, don’t the same scriptures say that Jesus is the son of the carpenter Joseph? It seems to be for biased reasons that one is to be taken literally, but the other is because of the times/legends/myths/beliefs…

Jesus was the son of Joseph. In reality the stepson (but no less of a son for that!), and in most people’s minds also his biological son.
Which is exactly why I also said that it was possible that the brothers and sisters were Joseph’s children from an earlier marriage.

(btw, AFAIK the “step-children”-theory doesn’t solve the problem with why Jesus entrusted Mary to John on the cross. When Mary married their father, Joseph’s children would have been obligated towards her also.)

 

[T_More]

Four brothers, several sisters. She travelled with them. She was outside with them…as you recall. They also would have been adult age more than likely.

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Brothers and Sisters of Christ?

by Denis Keohane

Would you be willing to try a small test, to see what happens if you try a different approach to the Scripture? It will only take a few minutes, I promise, and we’ll use nothing but the Bible. It is based on the exegetical principle that any interpretation of Scripture must be done in harmony with all the other Scripture that speaks to that subject. In others words, it is ALL true. We have four Gospels, and one of the manifest blessings of that is that we can compare them, as small things in one or two can and do clarify for us what is in another. That is, of times, called Scripture interpreting Scripture.

When Protestants insist that Mary had other children, they quote these verses, among others:

Matthew 13:55 “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

Mark 6:2-3 - “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”

Gal. 1:19 - “But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother”

James, Joseph, Jude, and Simon - Blood Brothers of Jesus?

These verses, importantly, actually named the Lord’s brothers, whereas all the others shown did not. That is why I suggest we look at these four men: James, Joses (or Joseph), Judeas (or Jude) and Simon.

First … James and Joseph

Let’s begin with James. There are two men named James among the disciples. One, of course, is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. This cannot be him then. So, this is the other James, called in Scripture James the less:

Mark 15:40: “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, and Salome.” (emphasis added)

So James is indeed the son of a woman named Mary. Not only that, but Joseph is his brother. That’s two of the four, right? Then, in Matthew, reciting the names of the twelve:

Matt 10:3: “…'James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus.” (emphasis added)

This too is talking of James the Less, as the other James, son of Zebedee, is spoken of in the previous verse. It is NOT a trick or really that hard! Alphaeus is this James’ father, not Joseph, the husband of Mary, mother of the Lord.

Now let’s do serious Bible Study, and go to Strong’s and the KJV (both Protestant, by the way).

khouse.org/blueletter/

Go to that link, and search for these two passages, one at a time: Matt 10:3 and John 19:25. In the first, click the ‘C’ icon for the Strong’s Concordance, then click the Strong’s number for the name Alphaeus.

Comes up ‘father of James the Less’.

We knew that. Now hit the back button to start again with John 19:25. Go to the Concordance (‘C’ icon), then hit the number for Cleophas, and gosh: it comes up father of James the less!

In other words, Alphaeus and Cleophas are simply two forms of the same name, and that is all we had to establish. Happens a lot in Scripture (John 11:16 Thomas, who is called Didymus; Acts 13:1 Simeon who was called Niger, etc…). So, James and Joseph are the sons of Cleophas (or Alphaeus) and a woman named Mary. Right?

Now, remember when we read in Mark 15:40 where a Mary who was the mother of James the less was standing off from the Cross? Now go to John also speaking of those witnessing the Crucifixion:

John 19:25: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.” (emphasis added)

Did you get that? That Mary, who was the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, from Mark 15:40, is the wife of Cleophas, the father of James the less, and she is called the ‘sister’ of Our Lord’s mother - Mary!

This still leaves Jude and Simon, though, of the brothers named, right? The Protestant hypothesis is still hanging on by a thread! Two of the four ‘brothers’ have been identified as the children of parents other than Joseph and the Virgin Mary!

Next … Jude

Acts 1:13 “…James, the son of Alphaeus , and Simon Zelo’tes, and Jude the brother of James…” (emphasis added)

There goes Jude out of the mix! Matter of fact, Jude says the same in his own epistle:

Jude 1:1 “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James…” (emphasis added)

It is not only NOT being held up that these brothers ‘may’ be Our Lord’s siblings, but that idea is being REFUTED by the Scripture, when one harmonizes the Gospels! We should also point out that the Scripture nowhere calls them Mary’s children.

Lastly … Simon

Oh wait! One more! There is still Simon, the fourth brother!

Simon, called the Zealot, is identified as coming from Cana, not Nazareth as were Joseph, Mary and the Christ!

Luke 6:15 “and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot,” (emphasis added)

Mark 3:18 “Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean…” (emphasis added)

Matt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (emphasis added)

Simon is a Cananean, while Jesus is a Nazarene!

…to be continued…

 

[T_More]

…part 2…

We see that Simon the Zealot being from Cana, and a ‘brethren’ or ‘brother’ of the Christ. Let’s go to John’s Gospel, chapter 2. Mary and Our Lord are invited to a wedding there! So, close business associates, maybe, of Joseph from the carpentry trade, or more likely - family, or brethren, relatives, are having this wedding! Like, maybe the Holy Family had actual kinfolk in Cana, be they cousins, in-laws, nephews, aunts, uncles, all of which are routinely called ‘brethren’!

Remember what Mary said to the servants? She told them to ‘Do as He says.’

Think about that a second? What would give this humble woman from Nazareth any position to so speak to the servants of someone else in an entirely different town, at their wedding? The simplest and most easily understood answer would be – she is a family relation to those giving the wedding feast…

So Simon is from Cana, and a ‘brother’ of the Lord! He’s not a sibling though, but very likely related. And James, Joseph and Jude all have the same father and mother, and it is not Joseph and the Virgin Mary, but their mother is named Mary and called the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary. Even here ‘sister’ may not mean blood sibling, or we have two sisters with the same name in the same family.

So, why do Protestants still want to convince everybody that where you read ‘brothers and sisters’ it is clearly intending blood siblings, in spite of what the Scripture shows?

Sisters of Christ?

We do also read about Our Lord’s sisters, correct? Maybe scriptures will bail the Protestants out on this?

Mark 15:40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome (emphasis added)

If this Mary, the wife of Cleophas, is the mother of James the less and Joseph, and also of Salome, then Salome could be called a sister of the Christ just as her blood brothers (same mother) could be called brothers of Christ, without being a sibling, right?

Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

As we can see, in every instance in which a brother or sister of Christ is named, each one can clearly be shown to be a son or daughter of someone other than the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Now that’s the look from the Bible alone, and with serious respect for the word of God, not man’s opinion jumping to conclusions.

Now, after you’ve searched the Scripture and studied it, and harmonized all the Scripture, maybe ask - why is the perpetual virginity of Mary important to the understanding of the eternal Divinity of Christ? What does it say about an important proof of His Godhead, enough that even Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bullinger and Wesley all strongly proclaimed that doctrine, in the defense of Our Lord?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Stop asking questions you already know the answer to, and knows the other one knows the answer to. It gives the impression that you consider your conversation partner daft, and it’s quite demeaning. They would have been referred to as his brothers and sisters. Which is why step-brothers (children of Joseph from an earlier marriage) is one of the possibilities. I’m just saying that it’s not the only one.

I apologize and meant no offense. Sincerely, I do not know what you know. If we all knew what each other realizes, there would be no posts. I was just giving my understanding of one possible reason, I believe, scriptures refers to some as ‘brothers and sisters’.

She would’ve been stoned for adultery. Maybe it’s because it’s getting late, but I don’t see where you’re going with this?

Just demonstrating another possible reason that the ‘crowd’ viewed them all as family.

Martin Luther the person is not the cornerstone of the Lutheran church, and although a great theologian, he is not the cornerstone of any church (he even resented the fact that people styled themselves “Lutheran”) - Jesus Christ is. Luther said a great many things (some contradictory) during his life, and if you think that every word spoken/written by Luther is a creed within the Lutheran branch of Christ’s Church, you’re sorely mistaken.

Christ is the cornerstone of the Church He built.

Martin Luther, even though he was excommunicated, made a decision that caused him to leave the Church. He made a conscious decision to start ‘another’ Church. If he could have been mistaken about beliefs in the Church he founded, how do you know which were mistakes and which were not?

Before you get your feathers ruffled again, let me clarify that I think Martin Luther did what he thought was right. Personally, I cannot see reforming something you leave. Reforming is changing. What he did was start something anew.

Also, it is my personal view that the reformation failed, because of the many denominations present today, all with different doctrines/teachings, all based on different interpretations of scriptures. This does not mean that I believe all those people are outside salvation. I believe the Holy Spirit can work where and how He wants. He brought me out of Protestantism.

Appeal to emotion.
The question is: Would a man desire sex with his wife? And the answer, unless Joseph was somehow sexually unable, can safely be assumed to be “yes”.

It was not an ‘appeal to emotion’. It is something I feel is spiritually discerned.

I find Numbers 30 an interesting read, when discussing the possibilities of how a Jewish woman could remain married, yet abstain from any sexual obligations, and how a husband could be bound by her vows. It clearly shows that possibility existed, in those times and in that culture.

I do not follow that logic at all? There is nothing at all in the message of the Angel to Joseph prohibiting him from having sex with Mary, as there were bans on people touching the ark. Typologies have a place, but they can also be taken too far. And this seems to me as a clear-cut case of that.

I don’t see why you feel it is ‘taken too far’. Look at the elaborate plans God demanded for the first ark. Then consider a maiden who had found favor enough to be the second ark.

Not at all. For me, the question is an adiaphoron. As I said - I don’t much care if Mary was ever-virgin or not. It makes no theological difference whatsoever.
What gets my goat is the, in my view, borderline obsession that the RC Church seems to have with the necessity of it. Something I cannot find any support for in Scripture, or in what I know of the culture at the time. On the contrary - having many children was considered a blessing, so for someone to “only” get one child would be remarkable, and make people wonder what she might’ve done to deserve that fate. And it would CERTAINLY have been something which would have been worthy of mentioning by the writers of the NT.

We believe it’s holding to the traditions, we were told to hold too, whether by word or epistle. Not everything was written down, and those things that were tell us the Church is the pillar and ground of truth and the place where the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known, instead of scriptures. Scriptures show a clear pictures of an authoritative Church built by Christ. We also see confidence that God’s truth can be protected, even through sinful men, when He told the multitudes to ‘observe and do whatsoever those that sit on the seat of Moses say to you…’ Christ knew all things, especially that He was building a Church, to be maintained by men in His earthly absence.

1: I don’t beat any drums. I asked a legitimate question.
2: What on Earth makes you think I represent anyone but myself?

Not everything was specifically addressed to anyone in particular. There are those who join this same conversation and ‘beat those drums’ every time.

As for representing yourself…that’s what it seems to be with most Protestants.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Arguing against the perpetual virginity is saying that God let people be lead astray from ‘real’ truth for generation after generation, but found it important enough to correct over 1500 years later. That seem to contradict Christ’s promises to be with His Church until the consummation of the world, or that the Spirit of Truth would reveal all things. That’s my honest opinion.

 

[guanophore]

Really??? Please provide the scripture to support your claim. You do know that many of the church fathers did not believe in the sinlessness of Mary, yes?

ForeverGrace, you seem so intent upon denying the Teachings of the Apostles preserved infallibly by the Holy Spirit in the Catholic Church that you are not using your common sense.

PRMerger correctly stated that none of the children in scripture said to be the “brethren of the Lord” came out of the same womb as Jesus. How can anyone provide scripture that does not exist? On the contrary, you are claiming they are children of Jesus’ mother, so the onus is upon you to produce a scripture verse that supports your assertion. You cannot provide any scripture verse that says these are the children of Mary because it does not exist either.

Sorry, been there, done that, got the T-shirt to prove it. Any scripture to support your assertion?

Really? You read the Early Fathers? Why don’t you believe what they wrote?